OKLAHOMA CITY (AP)  A federal judge Monday rejected Hobby Lobby Stores Inc.'s request to block part of the federal health care overhaul that requires the arts and craft supply company to provide insurance coverage for the morning-after and week-after birth control pills.

In a 28-page ruling, U.S. District Judge Joe Heaton denied a request by Hobby Lobby to prevent the government from enforcing portions of the health care law mandating insurance coverage for contraceptives the company's Christian owners consider objectionable.

The Oklahoma City-based company and a sister company, Mardel Inc., sued the government in September, claiming the mandate violates the owners' religious beliefs. The owners contend the morning-after and week-after birth control pills are tantamount to abortion because they can prevent a fertilized egg from implanting in a woman's womb. They also object to providing coverage for certain kinds of intrauterine devices.

snip

Hobby Lobby's attorney said the companies' owners will appeal.

snip

Hobby Lobby is the largest business to file a lawsuit against the mandate.

Hobby Lobby calls itself a "biblically founded business" and is closed on Sundays. Founded in 1972, the company now operates more than 500 stores in 41 states and employs more than 13,000 full-time employees who are eligible for health insurance coverage. The company, which is self-insured, has said it will face a daily $1.3 million fine beginning Jan. 1 if it ignores the law.

"It is by God's grace and provision that Hobby Lobby has endured," said David Green, founder and CEO. "Therefore we seek to honor God by operating the company in a manner consistent with biblical principles."

The Green family has said it has no moral objection to the use of other contraceptives and will continue covering them for its employees.

"Plaintiffs have not cited, and the court has not found, any case concluding that secular, for-profit corporations such as Hobby Lobby and Mardel have a constitutional right to the free exercise of religion," the ruling said.

I don’t know why this is so hard, the answer is simple, the STate using the Kelo decision as legal grounds, should immediately begin seizing the Homes of Federal Employees, starting with all Federal Employees classified as Public Servants and use the proceeds to pay for the Requirements imposed on their citizens by Obamacare. definitely satisfies the economic need requirement of Kelo.

In his ruling denying Hobby Lobby's request for an injunction, Heaton said that while churches and other religious organizations have been granted constitutional protection from the birth-control provisions, "Hobby Lobby and Mardel are not religious organizations."

In his decision the judge seems to recognize the rights of some organizations. It begs the question; do only religious organizations have religious rights? What about individuals? Apparently an individual who owns a business does not.

13
posted on 11/19/2012 9:30:10 PM PST
by TigersEye
(Who is John Galt?)

“Plaintiffs have not cited, and the court has not found, any case concluding that secular, for-profit corporations such as Hobby Lobby and Mardel have a constitutional right to the free exercise of religion,” the ruling said.”

Maybe something like,,”Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;,,”

If I were CEO of Hobby Lobby I would issue an internal order to HR, the law department, and the person responsible for negotiating emplyoee health insurance to ignore this Judge and Obama. See ya in court again.

Either way it is just what Obama wants... he wants every American forced off of private insurance plans and onto government assistance, and if you pay the fine he still wins, because those employees will have to go on the government plan. This is pure evil...coercion. Maybe the solution is to have well paid subcontractors instead, but then Obama will get them onto the government entitlement because then THEY will have to pay the fine or sign up for the plan instead of Hobby Lobby.

Then when prepared, refuse to pay the fine, OR offer morning after pill. Force the Kenyan to send federal marshalls to physically close the stores. Put huge signs out front of each closed store, “Closed by Order of Obama”.

The Ba$tard does not want the fight. He desperately wants threats to force compliance. If that fails, then he must act and look like he dictator he is. He does not want the bad “optics”, and we can force it upon him.

19
posted on 11/19/2012 9:39:43 PM PST
by DesertRhino
(I was standing with a rifle, waiting for soviet paratroopers, but communists just ran for office.)

We’re talking about Christianity, not karma. The commandments don’t have a footnote on them that says “can be ignored when you are threatened.” The one about not murdering is pretty clear. And the one about having no gods before God is pretty clear as to who should be feared more than the government.

Plaintiffs have not cited, and the court has not found, any case concluding that secular, for-profit corporations such as Hobby Lobby and Mardel have a constitutional right to the free exercise of religion," the ruling said.

A case? Why not try reading the Constitution?

Also - under this logic - it would seem that "a secular, for profit corporation" that is a media / press organization does not have a constitutional right to freedom of the press and could have its contents controlled by the government?

You’re right, the libs don’t want the fight. They expect the threats to work and will make only enough attacks as is neccessary to instill fear, but not so many as to provoke a civil war. The libs are banking on most people simply surrendering, and those they have hooked on this crack of theirs they know they will them forever. History is with them for the most part, with the exception of prohibition, but then speakeasy moonshine and rum was and is more popular than communion wine.

The First Amendment does not confer or guarantee any sort of religious freedom, even to the Church, in an Obamanation; we now consider it as a nullity. Obamacare particularly qualifies as an income tax insofar as one must generate income with which to pay the tax; therefore, it falls under the Sixteenth Amendment, which naturally overrides any provision of any preceding amendment, especially the First. Individual Americans moreover did not build businesses; rather, enterprises exist as a creature of big government alone for the good of big government to follow the orders and commands and mandates of big government.

Moving forward, Hobby Lobby should thank the judge graciously for clarifying its obligations and options. Hobby Lobby then must shut down its health insurance, reduce its employee compensation to account for the consequent tax against Hobby Lobby, and instruct its employees and their spouses and children to avoid any professional health care entirely. They moreover must pay a special tax from their reduced compensation for the privilege of lacking health insurance or access to medicine.

As a practical matter, this means for example that the wife of an employee will deliver their baby at home without medical attention rather than in a hospital equipped to handle any complications. She also will get no prenatal care beyond that which she can self-administer with the assistance of her husband. Such are the risks that people must assume for themselves in an Obamanation. Fortunately, even amateurs still can access limited medical information via libraries and Internet connections.

29
posted on 11/19/2012 9:57:55 PM PST
by dufekin
(Obama and Pelosi: at war against the Church--and innocent American babies)

I think they have an option to make all employees part-time. Of course, that would be destructive in many ways.

No. They fire all the employees and rehire them as contractors rather than employees. It's more and more common these days. Hobby Lobby will then not have to cover any benefits for the people who work there, and the people who work as contractors will still be able to work full time.

1) I agree with you that karma is not relevant to this discussion. A Christian store owner is in view, who answers to God for his deeds. There is no possibility that a Christian can voluntarily support the murder of innocent children. Karma and Christian morality are by no means equivalent. See discussion here: http://carm.org/karma-and-sin

2) On the other hand, I agree in part with TC in that coercion can mitigate guilt, even in a Biblical system of morality. In fact, Jesus addressed the tax question head on. He knew all things future, so he knew this would be a major threshold of moral challenge for believers down through the ages. Tax money given to Caesar was used for many things not compatible with Christian morality, up to and including the murder of innocent people. Yet Jesus teaches us to pay the tax. It’s Caesar’s shiny trinket. Give it back to him. And if you don’t have enough, go look for that fish with the coin in it’s mouth. God Himself will provide you with a way to pay the tax.

The decision by Roberts that the mandate is a tax will, I think, prove to be providential. Remember who Obama is. He is no mere dictator. He is Doctor Moreau, believing he can transform our society, that is, us, through systematic deconstruction of the judeo-christian paradigm, no matter how painful that might be to his subjects. This means it is important for him to use tools like the mandate to tear us away from our convictions concerning the most fundamental of our rights, for if we can be moved off that, we can be moved off anything else, and all things become negotiable. But it appears God has already anticipated this move, and provided us with a means of continuing to live and think and act as morally free Christians, in obedience to Christ. We pay the tax, and continuing preaching against the sins of our Herod, and rely on our God to bring him to justice.

You don't have to believe that actions have consequences. They will anyway. You can call a craft store a Christian store if you want to. You can pretend that this is a religious website and not a political website. You can think that religious freedom is only for Christians. It makes no difference to me.

If you would both like me to stop supporting conservative politics I can do that.

48
posted on 11/20/2012 12:20:30 AM PST
by TigersEye
(Who is John Galt?)

The Sanskrit word karma basically means to do or act. In most basic terms, the law of karma states that one reaps what one sows. The law of karma implies that every thought or deed, whether they are good or bad, will count in determining how an individual will be born in their next life on earth. So an individual with bad karma could be born many different times into lower castes of humans or even into lower forms of animals. In Hinduism, the person cannot be released until they are reborn into the Brahmin or priestly caste. So this is how karma and reincarnation are intertwined. So in reality individuals are in control of their salvation, which is their release from the cycle of birth and rebirth.1

BTW, that is absolute nonsense. You can't analyze something when you start with an entirely erroneous premise about it.

50
posted on 11/20/2012 12:22:56 AM PST
by TigersEye
(Who is John Galt?)

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.